What if...

Oldsmobile ! It looks very crisp and modern, but not at all what I'd expect from Olds'.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, sounds like a duck... replace "duck" with "Corvair"...where is Ralph Nader when you need him? 

It was placed in the right division IMO.

@sizedoesmatter Waddle Ralph Nader say when he reads the hood lettering on this "duck"?

Posted by: @jack-dodds

↑

@sizedoesmatter Waddle Ralph Nader say when he reads the hood lettering on this "duck"?

@sizedoesmatter Maybe the name should have been "ROLLS"?

After all these many years I'm still shaking my head wondering why Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Mercury, and Plymouth are no longer with us.  Instead of having each of these Brands offering 19 different models within the Brand, they could have just produced one or two different models in each Brand and we'd still have those legendary marques with us.  

@georgeschire George; although we obviously cannot be privy to the car company board justification to terminate the beloved marques you mention, I also am VERY saddened by their absence.

@georgeschire  You are quite right, had the 'big three' agreed to divide the market into four / five segments, supplied by each of their representative marques, then limit certain body styles to each segment, (EG. only segment 1 & 2  offers convertibles and 4 door hardtops / only segment 4 offers compacts and so forth) that would have reduced their need for every marque to offer a car for every potential buyer; save on overheads and limit the field.  It would not be a cartel as such, merely an industry arrangement, but would have required intra industry collaboration and trust to stick to the arrangement in good faith.

Posted by: @charles-rockett

↑

@georgeschire  You are quite right, had the 'big three' agreed to divide the market into four / five segments, supplied by each of their representative marques, then limit certain body styles to each segment, (EG. only segment 1 & 2  offers convertibles and 4 door hardtops / only segment 4 offers compacts and so forth) that would have reduced their need for every marque to offer a car for every potential buyer; save on overheads and limit the field.  It would not be a cartel as such, merely an industry arrangement, but would have required intra industry collaboration and trust to stick to the arrangement in good faith.

Yes!  It would been very simple for GM to keep their line-up.  Simply stop producing 19 different versions of every car for each Brand.  They could have had a low-end Chevy and a high end Chevy in just 2-door, 4-door and a station wagon.  Three cars instead of 19 for Chevy.  If the buyer wanted more or better, he had to move up to Pontiac.  And then do the same for Pontiac that was done for Chevy, just three versions of the car.  Follow through on this formula with Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac.  Here is the bottom line, GM as company still grabs the market.  What they did though was have each Brand compete with one another.  Made/makes no sense (to me anyway).  

@georgeschire, the dealers would have been livid.

@georgeschire Spot on.

@jkuvakas I'm not sure, were there Chevrolet dealers / Pontiac dealers etc. , back then? Perhaps they could have merged the dealers: Chevy /Pontiac /Oldsmobile  and Buick / Cadillac.  It would surely have been a bitter pill for the great American public to swallow, but as George argues, they may at least have retained their proud, historic marques.  For my part, I believe no one could have seen the industrial collapse we've witnessed. and "Western" financial institutions, financing off-shore production and manufacturers closing-down Detroit and the industrial heartlands, are more to blame.

Posted by: @jkuvakas

↑

@georgeschire, the dealers would have been livid.

Not sure why.  Back when I was kid going to new card dealers with my Dad, we had many dealers that offered multiple brands from the Big Three.  We had Chevy and Cadillac dealers under one roof, Buick and Pontiac also.  My thinking is that, if a customer wanted a lower end/less expensive car, he could go to the same place that they guy would for the high end/more expensive car. 

There were many dealers that sold both Mercury and Lincoln brands.  And in the case of Chrysler Corp. back in the day, we had Plymouth/DeSoto dealers, Chrysler/DeSoto dealers.  My main point in post above was simply that Chevy (for example) didn't have to offer 19 different Chevy's. 

By toking it down to just three versions of a Chevy, and doing the same for the other four brands under the GM umbrella, all of the brands would have had a distinct market share and thus GM as a whole would be the winner.   Bottom line, just my take on the situation.